On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:27, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:18, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Hmm. I don't like those names at all :(
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree. ?I don't think your original names are bad, as long as
>> >> > they're well-documented. ?I sympathize with Simon's desire to make it
>> >> > clear that these use the replication framework, but I really don't
>> >> > want the command names to be that long.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, after some IM chats, I think pg_streamrecv should be
>> >> renamed, probably to pg_walstream (or pg_logstream, but pg_walstream
>> >> is a lot more specific than that)
>> >
>> > pg_stream_log
>> > pg_stream_backup
>>
>> Those seem better.
>>
>> Tom, would those solve your concerns about it being clear which side
>> they are on? Or do you think you'd still risk reading them as the
>> sending side?
>
> It seems pg_create_backup would be the most natural because we already
> have pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup.
Uh, wow. That's really mixing apples and oranges.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
